In gene therapy, genetic information is usually delivered to a host cell in order to either correct (supplement) a genetic deficiency in the host cell, or to inhibit an undesired function in the host cell, or to eliminate the host cell. Of course, the genetic information can also be intended to provide the host cell with a desired function, e.g., to supply a secreted protein to treat other cells of the host, etc.
Many different methods have been developed to introduce new genetic information into cells. Although many different systems may work on cell lines cultured in vitro, only the group of viral vector mediated gene delivery methods seems to be able to meet the required efficiency of gene transfer in vivo. Thus, for gene therapy purposes, most of the attention is directed toward the development of suitable viral vectors. Today, most of the attention for the development of suitable viral vectors is directed toward those vectors based on adenoviruses. These adenovirus vectors can deliver foreign genetic information very efficiently to target cells in vivo. Moreover, obtaining large amounts of adenovirus vectors is for most types of adenovirus vectors not a problem. Adenovirus vectors are relatively easy to concentrate and purify. Moreover, studies in clinical trials have provided valuable information on the use of these vectors in patients.
A lot of reasons exist for using adenovirus vectors for the delivery of nucleic acid to target cells in gene therapy protocols. However, some characteristics of the current vectors limit their use in specific applications. For instance, endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells are not easily transduced by the current generation of adenovirus vectors. For many gene therapy applications, such as applications in the cardiovascular area, preferably these types of cells should be genetically modified. On the other hand, in some applications, even the very good in vivo delivery capacity of adenovirus vectors is not sufficient and higher transfer efficiencies are required. This is the case, for instance, when most cells of a target tissue need to be transduced.
The present invention was made in the course of the manipulation of adenovirus vectors. In the following section, therefore, a brief introduction to adenoviruses is given.
Adenoviruses:
Adenoviruses contain a linear double-stranded DNA molecule of approximately 36000 base pairs. The DNA molecule contains identical Inverted Terminal Repeats (ITR) of approximately 90-140 base pairs with the exact length depending on the serotype. The viral origins of replication are within the ITRs exactly at the genome ends. The transcription units are divided into early and late regions. Shortly after infection, the E1A and E1B proteins are expressed and function in transactivation of cellular and adenoviral genes. The early regions E2A and E2B encode proteins (DNA binding protein, pre-terminal protein, and polymerase) required for the replication of the adenoviral genome (reviewed in van der Vliet, 1995). The early region E4 encodes several proteins with pleiotropic functions, e.g., transactivation of the E2 early promoter, facilitating transport and accumulation of viral mRNAs in the late phase of infection and increasing nuclear stability of major late pre-mRNAs (reviewed in Leppard, 1997). The early region 3 encodes proteins that are involved in modulation of the immune response of the host (Wold et al., 1995). The late region is transcribed from one single promoter (major late promoter) and is activated at the onset of DNA replication. Complex splicing and poly-adenylation mechanisms give rise to more than 12 RNA species coding for core proteins, capsid proteins (penton, hexon, fiber and associated proteins), viral protease and proteins necessary for the assembly of the capsid and shut-down of host protein translation (Imperiale, M. J., Akusjnarvi, G. and Leppard, K. N. (1995). Post-transcriptional control of adenovirus gene expression. In: The molecular repertoire of adenoviruses I. P139-171. W. Doerfler and P. Bohm (eds), springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg).
Interaction Between Virus and Host Cell:
The interaction of the virus with the host cell has mainly been investigated with the serotype C viruses Ad2 and Ad5. Binding occurs via interaction of the knob region of the protruding fiber with a cellular receptor. The receptor for Ad2 and Ad5 and probably more adenoviruses is known as the “Coxsackievirus and Adenovirus Receptor” or CAR protein (Bergelson et al., 1997). Internalization is mediated through interaction of the RGD sequence present in the penton base with cellular integrins (Wickham et al., 1993). This may not be true for all serotypes, for example, serotypes 40 and 41 do not contain a RGD sequence in their penton base sequence (Kidd et al., 1993).
The Fiber Protein:
The initial step for successful infection is binding of adenovirus to its target cell, a process mediated through fiber protein. The fiber protein has a trimeric structure (Stouten et al., 1992) with different lengths depending on the virus serotype (Signas et al., 1985; Kidd et al., 1993). Different serotypes have polypeptides with structurally similar N and C termini, but different middle stem regions. The first 30 amino acids at the N terminus are involved in anchoring of the fiber to the penton base (Chroboczek et al., 1995), especially the conserved FNPVYP (SEQ ID NO:25) region in the tail (Arnberg et al., 1997). The C-terminus, or knob, is responsible for initial interaction with the cellular adenovirus receptor. After this initial binding, secondary binding between the capsid penton base and cell-surface integrins leads to internalization of viral particles in coated pits and endocytosis (Morgan et al., 1969; Svensson and Persson, 1984; Varga et al., 1991; Greber et al., 1993; Wickham et al., 1993). Integrins are αβ-heterodimers of which at least 14 α-subunits and 8 β-subunits have been identified (Hynes, 1992). The array of integrins expressed in cells is complex and will vary between cell types and cellular environment. Although the knob contains some conserved regions, between serotypes, knob proteins show a high degree of variability, indicating that different adenovirus receptors exist.
Adenoviral Serotypes:
At present, six different subgroups of human adenoviruses have been proposed, which in total encompass approximately 50 distinct adenovirus serotypes. Besides these human adenoviruses, many animal adenoviruses have been identified (see, e.g., Ishibashi and Yasue, 1984). A serotype is defined on the basis of its immunological distinctiveness as determined by quantitative neutralization with animal antiserum (horse, rabbit). If neutralization shows a certain degree of cross-reaction between two viruses, distinctiveness of serotype is assumed if A) the hemagglutinins are unrelated, as shown by lack of cross-reaction on hemagglutination-inhibition, or B) substantial biophysical/biochemical differences in DNA exist (Francki et al., 1991). The serotypes identified last (42-49) were isolated for the first time from HIV infected patients (Hierholzer et al., 1988; Schnurr et al., 1993). For reasons not well understood, most of such immuno-compromised patients shed adenoviruses that were never isolated from immuno-competent individuals (Hierholzer et al., 1988, 1992; Khoo et al., 1995).
Besides differences towards the sensitivity against neutralizing antibodies of different adenovirus serotypes, adenoviruses in subgroup C such as Ad2 and Ad5 bind to different receptors as compared to adenoviruses from subgroup B such as Ad3 and Ad7 (Defer et al., 1990; Gall et al., 1996). Likewise, it was demonstrated that receptor specificity could be altered by exchanging the Ad3 knob protein with the Ad 5 knob protein, and vice versa (Krasnykh et al., 1996; Stevenson et al., 1995, 1997). Serotypes 2, 4, 5 and 7 all have a natural affiliation towards lung epithelia and other respiratory tissues. In contrast, serotypes 40 and 41 have a natural affiliation towards the gastrointestinal tract. These serotypes differ in at least capsid proteins (penton-base, hexon), proteins responsible for cell binding (fiber protein), and proteins involved in adenovirus replication. It is unknown to what extent the capsid proteins determine the differences in tropism found between the serotypes. It may very well be that post-infection mechanisms determine cell type specificity of adenoviruses. It has been shown that adenoviruses from serotypes A (Ad12 and Ad31), C (Ad2 and Ad5), D (Ad9 and Ad15), E (Ad4) and F (Ad41) all are able to bind labeled, soluble CAR (sCAR) protein when immobilized on nitrocellulose. Furthermore, binding of adenoviruses from these serotypes to Ramos cells, that express high levels of CAR but lack integrins (Roelvink et al., 1996), could be efficiently blocked by addition of sCAR to viruses prior to infection (Roelvink et al., 1998). However, the fact that (at least some) members of these subgroups are able to bind to CAR does not exclude that these viruses have different infection efficiencies in various cell types. For example, subgroup D serotypes have relatively short fiber shafts compared to subgroup A and C viruses. It has been postulated that the tropism of subgroup D viruses is to a large extent determined by the penton base binding to integrins (Roelvink et al., 1996; Roelvink et al., 1998). Another example is provided by Zabner et al., 1998 who tested 14 different serotypes on infection of human ciliated airway epithelia (CAE) and found that serotype 17 (subgroup D) was bound and internalized more efficiently than all other viruses, including other members of subgroup D. Similar experiments using serotypes from subgroup A-F in primary fetal rat cells showed that adenoviruses from subgroup A and B were inefficient whereas viruses from subgroup D were most efficient (Law et. al, 1998). Also, in this case, viruses within one subgroup displayed different efficiencies. The importance of fiber binding for the improved infection of Ad17 in CAE was shown by Armentano et al. (PCT International Patent Publication WO 98/22609) who made a recombinant LacZ Ad2 virus with a fiber gene from Ad17 and showed that the chimeric virus infected CAE more efficiently than LacZ Ad2 viruses with Ad2 fibers.
Thus, despite their shared ability to bind CAR, differences in the length of the fiber, knob sequence and other capsid proteins, e.g., penton base of the different serotypes may determine the efficiency by which an adenovirus infects a certain target cell. Of interest in this respect is the ability of Ad5 and Ad2 fibers but not of Ad3 fibers to bind to fibronectin III and MHC class 1 α2 derived peptides. This suggests that adenoviruses are able to use cellular receptors other than CAR (Hong et al., 1997). Serotypes 40 and 41 (subgroup F) are known to carry two fiber proteins differing in the length of the shaft. The long shafted 41L fiber is shown to bind to CAR whereas the short shafted 41S is not capable of binding CAR (Roelvink et al., 1998). The receptor for the short fiber is not known.
Adenoviral Gene Delivery Vectors:
Most adenoviral gene delivery vectors currently used in gene therapy are derived from the serotype C adenoviruses Ad2 or Ad5. The vectors have a deletion in the E1 region, where novel genetic information can be introduced. The E1 deletion renders the recombinant virus replication defective. It has been demonstrated extensively that recombinant adenovirus, in particular serotype 5, is suitable for efficient transfer of genes in vivo to the liver, the airway epithelium and solid tumors in animal models and human xenografts in immuno-deficient mice (Bout 1996, 1997; Blaese et al., 1995).
Gene transfer vectors derived from adenoviruses (adenoviral vectors) have a number of features that make them particularly useful for gene transfer:                1) the biology of the adenoviruses is well characterized;        2) adenovirus is not generally associated with severe human pathology;        3) the virus is extremely efficient in introducing its DNA into the host cell;        4) the virus can infect a wide variety of cells and has a broad host-range;        5) the virus can be produced at high titers in large quantities; and        6) the virus can be rendered replication defective by deletion of the early-region 1 (E1) of the viral genome (Brody and Crystal, 1994).        
However, there is still a number of drawbacks associated with the use of adenoviral vectors:                1) Adenoviruses, especially the well investigated serotypes Ad2 and Ad5, usually elicit an immune response in the host into which they are introduced;        2) it is currently not feasible to target the virus to certain cells and tissues;        3) the replication and other functions of the adenovirus are not always very well suited for the cells; which are to be provided with the additional genetic material; and        4) the serotypes Ad2 or Ad5 are not ideally suited for delivering additional genetic material to organs other than the liver. The liver can be particularly well transduced with vectors derived from Ad2 or Ad5.Delivery of such vectors via the bloodstream leads to a significant delivery of the vectors to the cells of the liver. In therapies where other cell types other than liver cells need to be transduced some means of liver exclusion must be applied to prevent uptake of the vector by these cells. Current methods rely on the physical separation of the vector from the liver cells, most of these methods rely on localizing the vector and/or the target organ via surgery, balloon angioplasty or direct injection into an organ via, for instance, needles. Liver exclusion is also being practiced through delivery of the vector to compartments in the body that are essentially isolated from the bloodstream, thereby preventing transport of the vector to the liver. Although these methods mostly succeed in avoiding gross delivery of the vector to the liver, most of the methods are crude and still have considerable leakage and/or have poor target tissue penetration characteristics. In some cases, inadvertent delivery of the vector to liver cells can be toxic to the patient. For instance, delivery of a herpes simplex virus (HSV) thymidine kinase (TK) gene for the subsequent killing of dividing cancer cells through administration of gancyclovir is quite dangerous when also a significant amount of liver cells are transduced by the vector. Significant delivery and subsequent expression of the HSV-TK gene to liver cells is associated with severe toxicity. Thus, a discrete need exists for an inherently safe vector provided with the property of a reduced transduction efficiency of liver cells.        